The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds DirectlyFrom The Open And Publicly Available NewsgroupSci.Electronics.Design

This Group And Thousands Of Others Are AvailableOn Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.

Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any OtherNewsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup AndPosts Are For Informational Purposes Only.

From: grahame_olney@yahoo.com.nospam (Grahame Olney)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Fascinating Engineering
Message-ID: <3d29e5e3.7230817@news.earthlink.net>
References: <5m9khu85ckakd38btlrsid6ks4a3bjehca@4ax.com> <1fjT8.459264$%y.32423972@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> <3d1e7314_4@corp-news.newsgroups.com> <3D234790.7E1CF737@alphalink.com.au> <3D25F1A7.850E6959@boeing.com> <3d271150.5726193@news.earthlink.net> <3D29BE8F.D08CAA9E@boeing.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:19:07 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.234.89.145
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 18:19:07 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Paul Hovnanian wrote:
> The Egyptians assumed that Polaris was true north.
Want to state a reference for that or it it merely a conclusion?
If you are refering to the astronomical complilations of Ptolemy then
you might want to compare the dates of that written knowledge with the
dates of the Great Pyramids. What's a thousand years here or there
with regard to knowledge? eh? :)
> What this does indicate is the level of precision that they achieved
> in aligning with this star.
No it doesn't.
Quote the report of the alignment. To what tolerances did they use?
Did they have to make some alignment assumptions due to the irregular
edges made by the stone block sides? What constitutes a bearing for a
pyramid side? Did they average the edges or did they take the computed
Polaris time-position and say "That looks about straight". Even then
they are looking at blocks that were covered over with a thick facade
long since scavenged. How much error would the fascade induce? Its
rather like observing a ram-shackle Kansas barn timbers to conclude
its alignment with stars.
Failure to look at the facts carefully only makes one a potential
egyptologist. :)
> Had they used less accuracy, the precession effect would have been
> lost in the error.
Blind assumption. The dates quotes are well within the error already.
The precession statement is obviously inaccurate because it was stated
that the alignment of the three pyramids showed alignment to a
different Polaris position. They were built in total in less time than
the accuracy stated so there was no way to date their creation, much
less draw conclusion upon the order they were built.
Its like stating that the US Civil War occurred after WWII within an
accuracy of plus or minus 500 years. If no one knows the history...
that's a feasible statement but completely worthless due to the
confidence factor.
> I don't know what the effect of precession is in terms of
> degrees per year,
No offense... that's apparent.
> but given the ability to date the pyramids
> using this effect to within a number of decades, their tolerances
> can be deduced.
Incorrect. The dates of the pyramids differ by up to 500 years by
various forms of dating. Most of the carbon-dating done on the mortar
mixtures lead to an additional 150 years of age than classical
thinking. (you can't carbon date the stone because they have no
adequate decaying life form matter; some of the mortar had some.)
You simply can't date pyramids within a number of decades by Polaris
precession, the most obvious of reasons being the number of years in
written Egyptian history between each of those Pyramids. All you can
do is work the problem backwards and see if it looks good enough to
mention. Working forward you'd be hard pressed to decide upon what
constitutes a directional bearing for a pyramid side.